06:02 <whitequark> UnfinishedBusine: phkahler could assist you

12:06 <UnfinishedBusine> whitequark: Thanks! I appreciate it, I'll reach out to him

12:12 <UnfinishedBusine> whitequark: I have another question for you. If I wanted to add CAM functionality (Mill, Lathe, Jet) to SolveSpace would those additions be welcomed to SolveSpace or would it be prefered to fork and then go that route?

16:36 <whitequark> UnfinishedBusine: well, the additions would be welcome

16:37 <whitequark> the problem is that I won't have almost any review bandwidth and there is no ETA for when this won't be the case

16:37 <whitequark> could be years for all I know

16:53 <swivel> sounds like it's best to develop the features in a fork until they're quite stable then submit a PR with no expectations of it being reviewed quickly...

17:00 <UnfinishedBusine> whitequark: Great! I'm already working on them. No worries about the review bandwidth. As swivel said, i've forked it and will make the additions that way. A merge later will be a huge task though because there is going to be a large amount of changes. Some background, I own a company which manufactures CNC plasma cutting machine and we have our own propriotary control, CAD (https://jetcad.io), and CAM (JetCam,

17:00 <UnfinishedBusine> offline only available to our machine customers) systems. Right now our CAD/CAM is only 2D and we would like to start with SolveSpace and develop it into a full CAD/CAM package that could complete for some of Fusion 360's users...

17:06 <UnfinishedBusine> It will stay open source with the Copy Left license. What will be tricky for the merge is, I've already made a fair amount of changes to the UI to make it feel more like our JetCad software to help user move from our 2D to the 3D system so a merge down stream probably won't be that good of an idea for people who are already very happy with the UI (it's very good the way it is). Once I have extrude along a path and

17:06 <UnfinishedBusine> boolean fillets/chamfers, probably best if I just submit a pull request for thos features additions because they seem to be asked about often. Then keep the CAM stuff (which is gonna be a monumental task for the most part) as a part of my fork. Does that sound alright with everyone?

17:17 <whitequark> swivel: no, that just won't ever be merged in all likelihood

17:18 <whitequark> that's the problem with not having enough review bandwidth

17:18 <whitequark> there's no way to coordinate changes, yet not coordinating changes will result in divergence

17:20 <swivel> whitequark: what better approach is there given the circumstances? I'd just encourage keeping the fork in sync with upstream

17:21 <swivel> if upstream lacks bandwidth for review, it's unlikely it will deviate much from the fork anyways.

17:21 <UnfinishedBusine> I don't want to upset anyone involved in the project. Happy to do whatever you guy feel is best. Just want to make already great software even better

17:23 <swivel> I'm just a user and not really a stakeholder here, but I'd definitely appreciate being able to extrude along a path :)

17:31 <whitequark> it's probably fine to just have a fork in the circumstances, yeah

17:36 <UnfinishedBusine> Okay, once I have path extrusions working stable I'll patch that into SolveSpace. It's not the top item on my todo list right now and need to reach out to phkahler before attemting that anyways. Thanks for your time!